Gun control laws rarely do. But, the fact remains: there should be no issue with the same being applied to an abortion.
Fine do the test, hold the father responsible for the care and expense of the child. If the woman lies then charge her with a crime, child endangerment from non support and denying the child a right to their father.
But then you are inserting a bunch of government, laws, and bureaucracy into people's private lives when really its none of the government's business who the father is or what a woman does with her body.
Some day you may actually explain this imaginary "thing" you think gun ownership and medical procedures have in common... ...and then you can explain what Dr. Suess has to do with the Super Bowl...
Sure it is in the interest of society and the child and the government which must provide the support if the father does not. The child has certain rights here you know. We have child support laws already they need to be beefed up and better enforced.
You are calling a piece of tissue in the belly a "child" and that is just ludicrous to me. Also people are not obligated to sacrifice their bodies in the support of another.
Good to see you understand what gun ownership and abortions have on common. Glad I could clear that up for you.
You cleared up nothing ....you presented a ridiculous comparison and proved nothing.... Gun ownership compared to medical procedures ...hilarious....